The Trouble With Henry, Part 2

Josh Marshall can't seem to find an economist who is on board with the Bush administration's financial bailout plan:

I'm having a hard time finding economists or others with related expertise -- either on the right or left -- who don't believe two things: a) that this plan gives way, way too much discretionary power to the Treasury Department with little requirement even to make reports to Congres and b) as Paul Krugman puts it, "there's no quid pro quo here -- nothing that gives taxpayers a stake in the upside, nothing that ensures that the money is used to stabilize the system rather than reward the undeserving." Whether that means equity stakes for taxpayers or simply some assurance that the USG won't be paying premium prices for worthless crap, that key component just doesn't seem to be anywhere in the proposal.

And unless I'm not being clear, this request isn't simply for effect. This is not a rhetorical question. I'm really looking for examples. I can see lots of politicians saying we need to do something now or we'll all die and lining up to vote for whatever Paulson says. But I'm curious how many economists there are (or people with relevant professional expertise) who don't agree that these two shortcomings must be rectified.

As I said below, congress needs to be very careful. They need to take the time to actually comb through the proposal before voting on it. If there is any clue whatsoever that the plan may place America's financial house in increased jeopardy, it should be rejected outright.